Most of us, in one way or another, theorize the way we relate to our surroundings. Often, our theories are conditional on certain assumptions. Assumptions, on their own grounds, are often unconditional. For some, unconditional assumptions are based on reasoning. For others, they are based on religion. For the rest, they are based upon their own experiences, or observations, or gut feelings. For the last group, there are usually sufficient evidences to support their theories. In turn, their theories have a certain level of predictability. I think when we can go into the theory of theorizing, we need to suspend experiences, observations and gut feelings. Perhaps, for political theory, we need to suspend current affairs; social theory, the social world; economics, the market system. By suspending our experiences, we can have a certain confidence that our theories are not grounded in subjective interests - how we should perceive the world, how the world ought to function, how the world reflects our belief systems. There is a branch of theory - called critical theory - which has historically functioned as a way to question the way we theorize the social world. Of course, there are other branches of philosophy that dwell in the business of theorizing theories. But let's just use 'critical' theory for now. It is 'critical' in the sense that it can be subversive. It is also 'critical' in the sense that it offers a solution to unmask our various (precious) assumptions about the way we relate with the social, so that we can come to a better understanding of who we are, or why we are the way we are. Perhaps the word human 'emancipation' - which is a favorite word among year 1s and 2s - is a rather pretentious way of saying how we can better understand ourselves, in relations to others. In my opinion, this 'emancipation' thing, is possible only through reasoning. Yes, religion does help one to 'emancipate'; a closer word to religious emancipation might be 'epiphany', which is essentially a spiritual manifestation of Christ in or through the material world. But I'm not talking about that kind of 'emancipation'. I'm talking about a way of recognizing our own blind spots, or societal blind spots, so that we can better understand the world as we experience it - by way of reasoning. We can - and should(!) - reason in the way we cherish our religions, lest we become legalistic in our religious traditions. Still, I don't think 'emancipation' will therefore make someone happier. Why should we become 'happier' by virtue of reasoning? We become more aware of our surroundings, but we don't necessarily become happier. So perhaps, I am puzzled by people, who are keen to change political or social systems, as means to achieve human emancipation. Perhaps there are some who really want to emancipate in the sense that they want to understand their lives better, but my own unenlightened gut feeling is that people want to 'emancipate' because they want to be happy. So what is happiness? Michael Oakeshott says that he who keeps mending the fishing net catches no fish. I think he is right. We can suspend life and mend our theoretical nets eternally - reshaping our belief systems, challenging the assumptions of others, critiquing ourselves and others - and well, maybe there is a certain pleasure in that sort of thing. Perhaps it is pleasurable to live our lives according to our theories, or theory of theories. For me, when I try to live by my own theories, I become reclusive... I don't know why. Nothing wrong with reclusion. In fact, it is my own personal preference too. But I guess I'm mildly disturbed by my own theoretical source of reclusion. Maybe a response to myself, or rebuke against myself, is that the social world exists as a representation, and it doesn't even exist. Nothing exists except for the self - I think, therefore I am. So why even bother theorizing? We don't even need to suspend life, because life does not exist, in the descartian sense. I suppose in order to prevent reclusive tendencies, from 'theory' and within 'practice' (which I feel is a rather shoddy way of dichotomizing two modes of scientific inquiry), there is a need to suspend one's critical mind - not all the time, but for a while - for the purpose of catching some fishes along the way. And in that instantaneous moment when we suspend criticality, we can find happiness, and through happiness, our theories are reshaped, hopefully more complete. Maybe the fishes do not exist. Maybe the fishes are a manifestation of our imaginations. Maybe we are misrepresenting the 'objective fishes' out there. And maybe we'll catch some badly imagined fishes in the process. But at the very least, we are finally actualizing the purpose of the fishing net.
